H2H BW against RU, 24th of november 2012

[Marko]

I have always found the debate about force ratio's very interesting.

The hole quality v quantity debate intrigues me.

One other aspect that i find interesting .(is the quality of the tank crews.)

Many on this site have served in the military. or are currently serving solders.

So here is the question for you Guys.

In a purely hypothetical situation.

If you had to choose between having start of the art Equipment.

IE. Leo-2A6/M1A2. but the crews were poorly trained and not very motivated.

Or crews that were very well trained and highly motivated but had old out dated Equipment.

But still effective enough to hold there own.but with disadvantages in sighting systems main Gun Ammo and so on. Against superior equipment.

I Know there are many factors such as air support and Arty support.

Logistic's and so on.

But as soldiers what would you choose.

A good crew or a good Tank.

[Gibsonm]

Well its a very broad question.

What is the terrain?

What is the weather?

What is the definition of "old outdated equipment"

Good crews with only just outdated gear in suitable terrain in weather that nullifies the newer technology, will triumph over green crews.

Green crews in say Leo 2 in open ground on a Sunny day, will triumph over veteran crews in say T-34/85, Panzer III or Mark V.

[Marko]

Well its a very broad question.

What is the terrain?

Fulda gap.

What is the weather?

overcast.

What is the definition of "old outdated equipment"

leo_1/AS v M1A1

Good crews with only just outdated gear in suitable terrain in weather that nullifies the newer technology, will triumph over green crews.

Green crews in say Leo 2 in open ground on a Sunny day, will triumph over veteran crews in say T-34/85, Panzer III or Mark V.

Originally Posted by Gibsonm

Well its a very broad question.

Yes i realise that. but i thought you soldiers dont get to pick your wars just fight them.ha

What is the terrain?

Fulda Gap

What is the weather?

overcast.

What is the definition of "old outdated equipment"

leo_1/AS v M1A1

[Eisenschwein]

LOL, easy to answer: I would always choose the older Equipment with the long and well trained Soldiers!

But there are differences between the Nations and Systems of military Education!

A British Loader never could be a Gunner ( as far I know) a French Commander can not drive the Tank and a US Gunner can´t do the Commanders Job...

Or am I wrong ?

So it depends more on the Nation and it´s System to educate their Tank Crews.

[Gibsonm]

A British Loader never could be a Gunner (as far I know).

Well the Loader has been a Driver.

He will then graduate to being a Gunner.

Once he has done all three, and he's good enough, he will become a Commander.

[Thonar]

But as soldiers what would you choose.

A good crew or a good Tank.

The better equipment had never won a war.

The better training and quality of troops did.

But today: It's mostly economic power that wins wars.

A few examples:

1. The battle of france 1940 - german troops with outdated and worse equipment wins over the much stronger forces of France and the British expeditionary corps.

In the long run, the economic power of the soviet union and the united states brings the 3rd Reich to fall.

2. The first World War: The German troops were far superior in tactics and training (Stoßtrupp-tactics, flexible defense, ...), but it was again stopped by the economic power of the entente and the US. (ohh... by the way the first world war is IMO more interesting than the 2nd...)

But there is no war that was won just by superior equipment, but many examples for the opposite: Vietnam, Afghanistan, ...

For sure, superior equipment is an advantage, but only if you know how to use it.

Greetings

Thonar

[Ssnake]

It's not true that equipment advantage can't bring victory, if the advantage is only big enough. It took just two atomic bombs the change the minds of the Japanese high command by about 170°. All the Spanish conquistadores' helmets got dented multiple times when they destroyed Montezuma and his court. The Indian natives didn't know the technology of metal helmets and tried to club the Spaniards, just to no avail, and it brought the Spaniards victory in the seemingly most one-sided battle in history.

However, these are rare examples of huge technological gaps. Typically with military conflict between adjacent nations there is also a roughly comparable technological level, as serious advantages of one side will usually last only for comparatively short periods (if one side has better technology, it usually gets captured and copied by the other side if the conflict is sufficiently protracted).

Of course equipment is only one factor. It is the factor that is easiest to influence with money however, so it invites special attention.

[Thonar]

Also when I may sound now like a smart-ass, I have to argue further on:

The Spaniards had high loses by the escape out of Tenochtitlan. Also the siege of the same city, together with the Tlaxcaltecs, needed more than 3 months.

They didn't won the because of their superior weapons, even if this weapons were a huge advantage.

They won because of superior tactics. With improvements in technology will ever also came improvements in society, tactics and the overall-intelligence.

As result the Spaniards didn't only had the advantage of superior weapons. They also had many other on their side.

So the question is: If superior weapons can win a war alone, are there wars which were won by superior weapons against equally advanced enemies?

The answer is: No.

Now we have to proof the counter-thesis: Are there wars, which were lost while using superior equipment?

The answer is: Yes. Just take a look to WWII.

And we could ask another question to verify this thesis more:

Are there wars, which were lost while using superior equipment, even against not equally advanced nations:

And again the answer is: Yes. Examples are like said: Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or the Wars of the Scottish independence.

Very often the side with the more advanced weapon systems will win, but not because of this superior systems, its because of the advantages heading with the research of this systems, like tactical advantages or advantages in training, but not due to the superior equipment in my opinion.

Greetings

Thonar

[Ssnake]

There are historians that argue that the Western/European civilization rose to dominance because these nations were collectively better at killing (in addition to being more resilient to a lot of germs, because we were so incredibly filthy - e.g. read "Steel, Germs, and Guns" for details, or "Why the West Has Won" by Victor David Hanson), usually thanks to advantages in "kill technology". Japan and Germany showed especially in the final stages of their battles against the Allies that even suicide attacks could not make up for the gap in technology that was widening in '44/'45 (and actually resulted just in increased own casualties). The Wehrmacht is a perfect example of how you can be better at tactics and leadership and technology and still lose to numerical and material superiority (van Creveld, "Kampfkraft"), but at the same time the story of Barbarossa illustrates in countless examples that nevertheless the better equipment and tactics worked as powerful combat multipliers. Had the numerical disadvantage been less, the end result may have been different (fortunately it wasn't).

[Thonar]

There are historians that argue that the Western/European civilization rose to dominance because these nations were collectively better at killing (in addition to being more resilient to a lot of germs, because we were so incredibly filthy - e.g. read "Steel, Germs, and Guns" for details, or "Why the West Has Won" by Victor David Hanson), usually thanks to advantages in "kill technology". Japan and Germany showed especially in the final stages of their battles against the Allies that even suicide attacks could not make up for the gap in technology that was widening in '44/'45 (and actually resulted just in increased own casualties). The Wehrmacht is a perfect example of how you can be better at tactics and leadership and technology and still lose to numerical and material superiority (van Creveld, "Kampfkraft"), but at the same time the story of Barbarossa illustrates in countless examples that nevertheless the better equipment and tactics worked as powerful combat multipliers. Had the numerical disadvantage been less, the end result may have been different (fortunately it wasn't).

I never read the first two books you mentioned. But both of these books are criticized and see in my opinion the problem from a too great distance.

The way "Anglo-Saxons" fighting and thinking of wars is more in a logical way than for example the "German" do, which is seeing the war as a kind of art. (also like many Asian countries, in first place China (SzunTsi) and Japan)

So even within these western countries seems to be a difference in there believe of war.

After this I think I didn't get your whole argument right: In the first half you say, Germany and Japan lacked in technology, while in the second you said they were superior.

You mentioned the book "Kampfkraft" by Martin van Creveld, a book I read and I think I get your point, but it seems you didn't read the book Creveld is refering to: "A Genius For War: The German Army And General Staff, 1807–1945" by Trevor Dupuy. He stated that the Prussian/German army, after the defeat in the battle of Jena-Auerstedt, and the reformations by Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Boyen, Grolman and Clausewitz were superior in every battle fought till 1945, in every situation: With or without Air-Superiority, being outnumbered or in superior numbers, in cold and hot weather conditions, with or without superior equipment...

So, it was tactics and organisation which brought the victories of these armies. Creveld afterwards said, that Dupuy is right, but economic power is much more important. See for this "The Changing Face of War" by Martin van Creveld.

The operation Babarossa was maybe a victory of superior tactics, but definitely not of superior equipment. KV-1, KV-2 and T34 were superior to all German tanks in 1941, the IL-2 the better CAS-plane and even in handguns the russian were equally equipped.

So I still see may statement "equipment never won a war" approved.

Greetings

Thonar

[Ssnake]

Well, Japan lacked the technolog and tried to make up for it with sacrificing soldiers for suicide attackes (not just Kamikaze in the air, but also Banzai charges etc.), and that strategy utterly failed (it can be seen as a pathological extension of the Bushido ethos); in the last months, Germany resorted to similar tactics - with similar results.

Germany did have the technology in some areas, but not in others (Radar, electronics; these two elements doomed its strategic goal to knock out Britain as a springboard for the US invasion of Europe). Where the technology was there (e.g. tanks), its advantage was not big enough to overcome the disadvantage in economic power.

One could say that the German high command knew this very well, and therefore adopted the Blitzkrieg strategy for quick decapitation strikes rather than protracted attrition which it knew it could not win (another factor was the threat of having to fight on multiple fronts). Well, the decapitation didn'twork out in the Soviet Union and with Britain, and consequently Germany had to fight a war on US and Soviet terms of which it had no hope to win.

Superior technology is under the right conditions a serious multiplier for your combat strength, but the gap has to be bigger than any known example in human history to guarantee victory. The only example that comes to mind are the nuclear bombs of 1945 (and the credible threat that more would be coming).

If you think in terms of ahistorical scenarios you could come up with other examples - knights and machine guns, armored vehicles vs Roman legions, ...

I guess, we both agree that technology by itself has never "won" a war, but that technological gaps have tilted battles at tactical and operational level that would otherwise have had a very different result. But one can win battles and still lose a war.

[Hedgehog]

Wasn't there a skirmish in the late 19th/early 20th century where the King's Royal Rifles deployed the Maxim MG against Afghan tribesmen?

OK the Afghans probably had Jezzail muskets, so they weren't exactly helpless, but those MGs massacred them.

I forget the name of the battle.

(I just know about it from the Bond File: The living daylights)

[Ssnake]

Well, the introduction of the MG changed the battlefield much faster than the imagination of a lot of officers. Took them until 1915 to realize what was going on, and until 1917 to find solutions that weren't bat crazy (like, "we'll send wave after wave until they run out of ammo, eh?").

[Hedgehog]

Well, the introduction of the MG changed the battlefield much faster than the imagination of a lot of officers. Took them until 1915 to realize what was going on, and until 1917 to find solutions that weren't bat crazy (like, "we'll send wave after wave until they run out of ammo, eh?").

Sounds familiar....

"The Killbots?! You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them! Until they reached their limit and shut down." - Capt. Zapp Brannigan

[Ssnake]

I did not want to introduce yet another Futurama/Simpsons quote. I do that too often already in my conversations.

That said - well spotted. Of course I translated that immortal scene into a WW1 context.